I think the current system works well enough except for one type of story. Stories of a personal tragedy in which friends and family may seek support are not appropriate places for the free exchange of ideas. Thus, the paper could mark some stories as being moderated and most of the issues of comments would be solved.

It should be noted that no longer are the comments anonymous because the newspaper knows the real identities of people. It is only anonymous to the general public.

Back when comments were truly anonymous then there were anonymous comments that could have led to lawsuits or criminal investigations (claimed wife of a sheriff's deputy saying her husband and others would fail to do their sworn duty if Gary Wall was elected).

I am not sure what is wrong now that needs to be fixed. Yes, there are still some inappropriate comments, but they are just as easily from named people as anonymous posters.

I agree with scottw, the current system is good, and the Pilot is well aware of everyones identy and can easily take action to remove posts and bar posters for its site if they feel a poster is going over the line.

And what I suggested was moderating some stories, in particular, personal tragedies where friends and family may be seeking supporting words and not an open expression of ideas. Such as the articles on former Soroco student John Lipsie being a passenger in a fatal car crash or the fatal fire in Craig are probably not appropriate places for speculation on how it happened and so on.

In particular, the comments following the death of Slopeside's owner (name not used so this doesn't show up in a search for his name) a few years ago ranged from sympathy notes, to those accusing that area's police dept of incompetence and suicide awareness. It would have been better if paper had a moderated article for sympathy and support comments and had some other article for unmoderated comments on the other issues.